“The function of battle is destruction; of competition, construction.”
– Ludwig von Mises
FEMINIST LITERATURE OFTEN POSITS THAT COMPETITION AND cooperation are opposites. Exchange is seen as competitive, not cooperative (Strober 1994; Hartsock 1983; Gross and Averill 1983).1 The dichotomy is important in that it is often invoked in order to explain why mainstream economics has focused on market activity to the exclusion of non-market activity, and why this fascination is sexist. Since resource allocation through markets is determined by competition for monetary profits, if this process can be interpreted as sexist, then reliance on markets is sexist as well.
This paper addresses the conclusions of both the “feminist empiricist” position and the “feminist difference” position, as explained by Marianne A. Ferber and Julie A. Nelson.2 Both of these feminist views have described cooperation and competition as opposing ways of organizing society or of solving social problems. With respect to the feminist empiricist position, it is not male economists’ theories per se that are patriarchic, “but the questions male economists have asked and the conclusions they have drawn” (Ferber and Nelson 1993, p. 8). To the extent that male economists choose to focus on and study competitive means to achieve social goals to the exclusion of cooperative means, they may be viewed as sexist. Competitive behavior is defined in the present paper as rivalrous (Kirzner 1973); e.g., individuals try to out-do others in order to achieve their goals. In contrast, individuals agreeing with and working with others to achieve their goals, is seen as cooperative. The exclusion of cooperation in the analysis of these male economists might be due to activities often performed by women. But if by focusing on competition the economist is also, of necessity, studying cooperation, then the argument that a focus on competition is biased (at least against cooperative “feminine” behavior) is dissolved.
On the other hand, the feminist difference position posits that male economists study and define competition in a given way because of the methods they have developed over time; methods which do not incorporate “women’s ‘ways of knowing’” (Ferber and Nelson 1993, p. 8). If the methodology used leads male economists to study competition to the exclusion of cooperation, such methods may be fostering sexist analysis. Even if the strict methodology of mainstream economists does not allow for an analysis of competition which includes both rivalrous and cooperative behavior,3 we argue that once we depart from this methodology, the analysis of competition is not separate from that of cooperation. Therefore, insofar as feminists4 treat the two as separate (after they have stepped outside of mainstream methodology) they are incorrect in doing so.
Once it is demonstrated that the competition/cooperation dichotomy is false, it will be shown, pari passu, that competition and cooperation, at least in the context of free markets, are not mutually exclusive but are, instead dependent upon one another. That being the case, if economists focus on market activities to the exclusion of non-market activities, it is not because of a predisposition to focus on competitive activities over cooperative ones; nor does it stem from any sexism, whether explicit or implicit.
The theoretical idea that competition and cooperation are mutually exclusive and, in fact, are polar opposites of one another, is not a new one. Modern feminist literature builds upon a tradition dating back to the early socialist feminists, including Robert Owen, William Thompson, Anna Wheeler, and August Bebel.5 In their critiques of individualism in general, the idea of competition as a principle of societal organization was discouraged because of the kind of character it would presumably promote among the people. Instead, cooperative efforts of all kinds would foster good character and habits and lead to “prosperity and happiness.”6 With respect to women in particular, competition was seen as detrimental and unfair. This was because men could compete without being interrupted “by gestation” (Thompson 1963, p. 1824).
It is interesting to note that Bebel, who termed competition “rivalry,” did not condemn the activity per se, but saw it as beneficial depending upon the motives and circumstances of those engaged in it (Bebel 1910).7 Therefore, it was possible that “common interest will cause all to seek to improve, simplify and hasten the process of work” (ibid., p. 375). Bebel did see, therefore, something positive in rivalry, but only outside the profit-seeking mode of organization. With profit-seeking, the rivalry produces negative outcomes: “Ambition is harmful only when it is satisfied at the expense of others or to the detriment of society” (ibid., p. 375 fn.). While rivalry has the potential to produce societal benefits, competition in the marketplace produces only individual gain.
The socialist roots of the competition/cooperation dichotomy have been emphasized in modern feminist literature, especially with regard to competition’s effects on women:
Women’s interests are disadvantaged by the centrality in economic theory of the concepts of scarcity, selfishness, and competition. The feminist rethinking of these concepts benefits not only women, but also economic theory and policy. (Strober 1994, p. 145)
In many social-economic situations, for instance in the workplace, it is thought by those of this methodological persuasion that the existence of scarcity (of people, money, markets, goods, services, etc.) is an artificial construct men seem to impose in order to establish a competitive and hierarchical situation (competitive against one another and against the milieu which they define as “external”) (Gross and Averill 1983, p. 88 fn.). Part of the milieu defined as external by men is cooperative behavior. Competition is therefore viewed as “an increasing capacity to manipulate nature, a constant struggle for occupation and control of territory” (ibid.), an attempt to destroy, or rivalry with a purely selfish intent. Furthermore, it is “masculine” in nature. Competition conjures up an image of fighting, of conflict; of, in Hobbesian (1943) terminology, life being “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.”
Cooperation, on the other hand, is defined as a “relationship” which is other-directed and socially driven. It is also “feminine.” “For example,” as Julie Nelson explains, “it might be considered more ‘feminine’ to model a particular phenomenon in terms of its aspects of cooperation rather than in terms of its aspects of competition or conflict” (Nelson 1992, p. 121, emphasis added). In this way, cooperation is not a competitive strategy but is a means to more desirable social arrangements in and of itself. Or at least, “cooperation that cannot be reduced to a competitive strategy is of special interest” to feminists (Held 1985, p. 301). By emphasizing cooperation rather than competition, one outcome is that “a number of alternative conceptions of economic relations focus on giving and the satisfaction of human needs, concepts obscured by the standard economic metaphors tied to separative conceptions of selfhood” (Strassmann 1993, p. 62).
Since competition, especially market competition, is seen as separative, other market phenomena are also viewed as non-cooperative. The exchange relationship is seen as a direct result of competition and is thus a purely individualistic, self-centered action. Since men, not women, have traditionally engaged in the activity of market exchange, the concept can be seen as masculine.8 In fact, Nancy Hartsock views the masculine market environment as analogous to a battleground:
If the community of exchangers (capitalists) rests on the more overtly and directly hostile death struggle of self and other, one might be able to argue that what underlies the exchange abstraction is abstract masculinity. (1983, p. 305)
This exchange abstraction, according to Hartsock, becomes even more revealing when viewed as a battle. She therefore concludes,
the male experience when replicated as epistemology leads to a world conceived as, and (in fact) inhabited by, a number of fundamentally hostile others whom one comes to know by means of opposition (even death struggle) and yet with whom one must construct a social relation in order to survive. (1983, p. 298)
Exchange is a social relationship, but it is one that arises out of necessity rather than cooperation per se.
Susan Feiner further maintains that the actors in standard economic theory are always engaging in exchange, that is, “Every behavior is a giving up in order to receive” (1995, p. 151). A “psychoanalytic reading” of this exchange relationship, according to Feiner, “sets the stage for a new, feminist understanding of economics which has the potential to recast the human activities of production, distribution, and consumption as relations of sharing rather than as relations of exchange” (ibid., emphasis added).9
Also important are the consequences of competition and exchange as compared to those consequences of cooperation. Competition with selfish intent can be viewed as harmful because it produces unequal outcomes, in this view. Those who are best equipped to compete (destroy) will gain, at the expense of those who are not. Competition, from a societal point of view, is seen as a negative-sum game. As more and more competitors are destroyed, the proportion who cannot successfully compete increases, thus widening the gap between the “haves” and the “have nots.” The outcome of such competition is an inequitable distribution of wealth. Therefore, “When Owen, Thompson, Wheeler, and Bebel railed against competitive individualism, and called for greater social cooperation, they invoked moral categories of right and wrong, fair and unfair” (Folbre 1993, p. 106).
And again, this inequitable distribution of wealth especially impacts women, as Strober emphasizes:
Since women are disproportionately represented among the “have nots,” women stand to benefit from a world view that is less centrally focused on scarcity, selfishness, and competition. As economics begins to include abundance, altruism, and cooperation in its analyses, there will be more emphasis on redistribution of goods and services and more emphasis on an improvement in women’s economic situation. (1994, p. 145)
Competition is inherently sexist. This is so not because men are more competitive and women more cooperative (if indeed this is even true whether by socialization or “nature”), but because (probably for power reasons) men have usually occupied the competitive realms of society while women have occupied the cooperative ones. Markets, being competitive, will naturally attract men. If economists focus on competition (rather than cooperation), they will address markets, and will thus study what is masculine, not feminine. The strict neoclassical model, with its emphasis on competition and exchange,
displaces classical concerns for concrete, embodied activities like labor and production. These inescapably physical activities—some would even say womanly—vanish, replaced by autonomous, rational, choosing minds. (Feiner 1995, p. 161)
Market competition is also sexist because it supposedly perpetuates a redistribution of wealth from women to men. If individuals were to focus instead on cooperative means of resource allocation, a more equitable pattern of wealth would arise in society (Strober 1994). The sexist and inequitable distribution of wealth in market economies arises because economists as well as the general public look to competition for progress and success. And, because markets are inherently competitive, not cooperative, it is through them that individuals gain power and wealth. Since markets have traditionally been under the dominion of men, they have been in a position to become powerful and wealthy at the expense of women, who have traditionally occupied other arenas.
As men gained power, they deliberately perpetuated the concept of competition as the means not only to attain individual success, but social progress as well, in order to remain in control. Many social institutions are therefore seen as being deliberately constructed in order to maintain masculine power. The stereotypical “domain” of women—household activities and family responsibilities—is relegated to the unimportant areas of social life. Here, we do not find competition, but rather nurturance, tolerance, benignancy, sharing, and cooperation. These characteristics or kinds of behavior are deemed unimportant to the progress of society, as well as to those studying it. Hence, both the very process of competition, itself, and those who examine it without seeing its drawbacks, notably mainstream economists, are “sexist.”
Some feminists trace this line of thought back to liberalism in political philosophy. Under this tradition:
women’s work was taken for granted, seldom discussed, and excluded from political theory, because these authors viewed women and their work as “part of nature” within a metaphysic that denigrated nature. Moreover, women’s activities did not count as “moral,” since only exercising “autonomy” in the public sphere counted as “moral.” Thus the separative self was valued while nurturant connection either was ignored or deprecated. (England 1993, p. 40)
The feminist claim—that neoclassical economics (with its focus on the self-interested individual in competitive markets) ignores much of what is interesting and important—does have validity.10 The model of perfect competition, for example, tells us nothing about reality—especially about the existence of competition. As F.A. Hayek explains, “‘perfect’ competition means indeed the absence of all competitive activities” (1948, p. 96). The model of perfect competition assumes homogeneous products produced by a large number of small firms that can enter and exit the industry without cost. The model also assumes perfect information on the part of economic agents. It is only when competition is viewed as rivalry, however, that Hayek’s point makes sense. To compete means to differentiate one’s product and, in the process of competing, we learn what is and is not a competitive (profitable) activity. But, it is through this competitive process, and only in this way that we can gain such knowledge.11
Paradoxically, in the realm of perfect competition, no real competition ever takes place. Firms do not so much as see themselves as rivals with one another. There is no sense of winning and losing, or triumphing over a competitor. Rather, abstracting from entry and exit, each firm believes that it can produce all it wishes; its offerings comprise so small a part of total industry output that every one of them supposedly acts as if it faces a flat demand curve. The point is that while the feminists do have something of a legitimate criticism to level against the neo-classical model of perfect competition, this does not at all apply to the Austrian perspective12 of rivalrous competition.
There are also important policy implications that follow from perfect competition.13 Cooperative ventures between firms in the same industry, for example, are interpreted by it as (at least) potentially monopolistic, if not per se evidence in this regard. In fact, this model, by its very nature, defines cooperative behavior among firms as anti-competitive. The further an industry deviates from the “ideal structure” (an indefinitely large, not to say “infinite” number of small firms with no control over price on the part of any of them), the more likely it is to have “monopoly power.” Furthermore, by focusing on scarcity and choice in a world of given preferences, the concept of society is, to a degree, nonexistent. Coordination in a social setting, where individuals make choices under uncertainty, is pushed aside in order to formalize individual decision-making.
It is certainly reasonable to share with feminists some substantive criticisms of neoclassical theory (Horwitz 1995). Basing economic analysis on purposeful action, the individual does not have predetermined preference functions and perfect knowledge. Quite the contrary, humans are social beings, with imperfect knowledge, subjective tastes, and an (albeit limited) ability to learn.
As Hayek explains, “The economic problem of society is thus not merely a problem of how to allocate ‘given’ resources … it is a problem of the utilization of knowledge which is not given to anyone in its totality” (1948, pp. 77–78). The knowledge that exists in an economy is dispersed among individuals, is subject to time and circumstances, and is constantly changing. Therefore, the problem is widened from the utilization of existing knowledge to the discovery of new and better knowledge. Given this dispersed and limited knowledge, coordination of individual plans is imperative.
Feminists should welcome such an emphasis on coordination rather than scarcity and choice per se. Myra H. Strober notes that “many problems are not a result of scarcity but of maldistribution” (Strober 1994, p. 145), and Julie Nelson writes that “economic provision” should be “the center of study” in economics (Nelson 1992, p. 119). However, Strober and Nelson appear to have a particular distribution or provision of goods in mind as a goal to their analyses, whereas Hayek would argue that it is impossible to achieve a predetermined outcome when dealing with something so complex and spontaneous as a social economic order. But a focus on coordination in society can help us understand why a particular pattern of distribution arises.
With such a focus on knowledge and coordination, institutions play a crucial role in the analysis. Which ones better enable people to utilize information? How do these institutions come about? Changes in the institutional framework of society (the “rules of the game”) can have far-reaching effects on economic coordination—another point supported by feminist dismal scientists (but often ignored by neoclassical economists). However, regarding the competition/cooperation dichotomy, a critical departure from the feminist approach occurs with respect to these rules of the game.
First, at the most basic level, competitors within markets certainly try to out-perform one another—there is rivalry.14 But individuals in markets compete under a given set of rules; before the rivalry can take place, they must be made clear. Insofar as there is agreement to abide by the rules of the game, there is also cooperation. If this agreement does not exist, then cooperation is impossible, nor will its usual outcomes result.
For example, assume a society of three individuals. Two of them may agree to a given rule and one may not. If each has already consented at a “constitutional” level (Buchanan and Tullock 1971) that in any given case where there is disagreement, the majority can “force” the minority (with an actual threat of violence, if need be) to abide by the rules, then in essence, there is still agreement or cooperation (on, at least, the making of the rules). If, on the other hand, all three do not agree on the process of the making of the rules or on what rules to abide by, then there is no cooperation. Instead, coercion is the only option.
The key lesson from this argument is that in the absence of coercion, rivals must cooperate before they can compete. Just as the constitution level of law making underlies debate over specific laws, so, too, does cooperation serve as the very foundation of the rivalry that occurs in markets. Indeed, in any interaction or “game” involving commercial competition, cooperation is necessary. While players in most games compete against each other either individually or in teams, they do so in a cooperative framework established by common rules which ensure that success is achieved either by skill or luck or some combination of the two. Cooperation on this (often unspoken and even unconscious) level is a precondition of the pleasure and profit that we derive from any such activity.
There is no need for each participant in the market to have the same goals or objectives for cooperation (and the benefits derived thereof) to take place. The market is an institution “that maximizes the opportunities for interaction without at every turn calling into question the values of others or the legitimacy of the ends they seek” (Coleman 1987, p. 86). As Frank Knight explains:
The supreme and inestimable merit of the exchange mechanism is that it enables a vast number of people to cooperate in the use of means to achieve ends as far as their interests are mutual, without arguing or in any way agreeing about either the ends or the methods of achieving them. It is the “obvious and simple system of natural liberty.” The principle of freedom, where it is applicable, takes other values out of the field of social action. In contrast, agreement on terms of cooperation through discussion is hard and always threatens to become impossible, even to degenerate into a fight, not merely the failure of co-operation and loss of its advantages. The only agreement called for in market relations is acceptance of the one essentially negative ethical principle, that the units are not to prey upon one another through coercion or fraud (1956, p. 267).
Thus, the game played in markets does not require that participants agree upon a long list of rules, but instead, on only one basic rule. This makes agreement (and therefore cooperation) more likely because the generality of the (no coercion/no fraud) rule leaves the door open for all to pursue very different ends under the same rule. As Jules Coleman notes, with the principle of freedom as its basis, Knight argued that individuals would choose to use markets for social interaction because of “social stability” (1987, p. 85). If consensus and widespread cooperation on the rules of the game are necessary for stable social arrangements, then markets will be selected over any other alternative whereby agreement on ends or values must be dealt with constantly if people are “free to choose” (Friedmans 1980). The rules necessary for competitive markets are broad or general ones and are, therefore, more likely to be stable over time.
Once cooperation regarding the rules of the game exists, the game of competition will foster social well-being (and economic productivity). This is another way in which market competition is fundamentally cooperative. Certainly, individuals exchange to make themselves better off, but that does not imply that anyone engaging in the exchange is made worse off. In fact, it is quite the opposite. Both parties enter a voluntary exchange in order to improve their positions. An individual cannot make an exchange unless someone else agrees to take part in it. In this way, market exchange is a social activity that is at one and the same time both cooperative (both parties must agree to make an exchange) and competitive (both parties will try to get the “best deal”).
Far from being “exploited” by commercial interaction, each party gains. In the ex ante sense of anticipations, both buyer and seller necessarily improve their welfare; they would scarcely agree to take part if they didn’t expect to profit thereby. It cannot be denied that, in the ex post sense, one cannot apodictically conclude that emptor and vendidor will always benefit. But even here, the presumption, particularly for repeat business, is that this is still the case.
Market competition is thus dependent upon social cooperation. The one cannot take place without the other. Market competition is not anti-social or anti-cooperative—quite the opposite. It is not a “fight to the death” as sometimes described in the feminist literature. As Mises explains:
Fighting in the actual original sense of the word is anti-social. It renders co-operation, which is the basic element of the social relation, impossible among the fighters, and where the co-operation already exists, destroys it. Competition is an element of social collaboration, the ruling principle within the social body. Viewed sociologically, fighting and competition are extreme contrasts. (1981, p. 286)
Mises’s idea that “competition is an element of social collaboration” can be taken to an even more fundamental level. He begins with the division of labor: “The fundamental social phenomenon is the division of labor and its counterpart human cooperation” (1966, p. 157). Isolated yet rational humans learned through experience that “cooperative action is more efficient and productive than isolated action” (Mises 1966, p. 157). Humans learned that specialization increased productivity and made social progress possible, but it also made individuals dependent upon others. Exchange became the means to dealing with the dependency. At the same time, trade increased socialization. Apart from hand-to-mouth hermits, individuals must cooperate with one another if they are to survive, let alone prosper.
Both the division of labor and exchange (cooperative efforts) are enhanced by competition. This process provides the knowledge from which people determine how labor should be divided, what labor should produce, and which production techniques should be utilized. Without this process of competition, society would remain stagnant. As Hayek explains:
But which goods are scarce goods or which things are goods, and how scarce or valuable they are—these are precisely the things which competition has to discover…. Utilization of knowledge widely dispersed in a society with extensive division of labor cannot rest on individuals knowing all the particular uses to which well-known things in their individual environment might be put. (1978, pp. 181–82)
In other words, “competition is a discovery procedure” (Hayek 1978, p. 179). It is through the very act of competing that we discover better ways of doing things: of producing, of pleasing consumers, and, in fact, better ways of cooperating. Exchange is beneficial to the parties involved because the competitive process has provided producers with more knowledge regarding what consumers want and where scarce resources should be utilized. Therefore, cooperation (division of labor and exchange) is dependent upon competition.
Without the competitive process and the prices that flow from it, economic coordination becomes virtually impossible, as the failure of planned economics has everywhere empirically demonstrated (Boettke 1991; Conway 1987; Ebeling 1993; Foss 1995; Gordon 1990; Hoppe 1989, 1996; Horwitz 1996; Klein 1996; Lewin 1998; Mises 1981; Reisman 1996; Reynolds 1998; Rothbard 1991; Salerno 1990a, 1990b; Steele 1981, 1992). Economic competitors cooperate with one another through a constant flow of information provided by prices. Commercial rivals are constantly fed indicators of their relative successes or failures by the prices that they are able to charge compared to others. The supply of such information allows each participant to cooperate and seek new opportunities and efficiencies—even though on another level they are each trying to outdo each other in terms of rivalrous business success. Economic coordination and the exchanges it makes possible are dependent upon a competitive order. If, at the fundamental level, competition is dependent upon cooperation—while at the same time cooperation is dependent upon competition—how can they be a dichotomy? Instead, competition and cooperation are two necessary components of economic social organization.
It is reasonable to assume that for many, if not for all, cooperation is a personal goal. If we truly are social beings, in need of nurturing and personal interrelations as much as the increased material wealth brought about by the division of labor, then it makes more sense to think of cooperation as our ultimate goal, not competition. There is then no reason to think that humans are not, by nature, social and cooperative and that sometimes, therefore, the “end” sought could easily be some form of cooperation (instead of, for example, increased efficiency or material progress). It is on this cooperative nature of human beings, and not the self-interested competitive nature, that feminists want to focus.
Economists should have no problem with the idea that social cooperation is a human goal, or with addressing the issue of how we enhance social cooperation. But, if we do focus on this (and not productivity per se), we still face the “knowledge problem.” Whether we are trying to coordinate resources and enhance cooperation through exchange or to coordinate human beings and enhance cooperation per se (for example, in relationships, in marriages, or in families, where women have usually been the main actors), we still must find ways of dealing with our limited knowledge. This is especially true with respect to what others expect or want from cooperative efforts and regarding new forms of cooperation. The same process of competition that enhances knowledge utilization and discovery in the marketplace applies to social institutions in general. More cooperative institutions (enhancing human life) can only be found through a process of trial and error, of social experimentation, of persuasion—which are often forms of competition.
Certainly, for example, in choosing a partner for marriage, selecting among alternatives increases the likelihood that any given choice will form a more cooperative union than if there are no alternatives, i.e., no rivalry. Competition provides alternatives by which individuals can experiment and learn more about what they need from a marital relationship—or indeed, whether they need one at all. If a person’s goal is cooperation, a competitive process will certainly aid in achieving it.
If one goal of feminists is to persuade economists to focus more on non-market activities, using the competition/cooperation dichotomy is not a compelling argument. Since this distinction is only a superficial one, a focus on competition does not lead one to favor market activities vis-à-vis non-market ones. Capitalist behavior is every bit as cooperative as it is competitive. Therefore, in the feminist sense, it is just as “feminine” as “masculine.” If market activities are emphasized, it is for some other reason. And if focusing on markets is sexist simply because we find more men than women taking part in markets, the male domination of markets (the extent of which is a debatable, and ultimately empirical, issue) is not because market relationships are competitive rather than cooperative in nature.
Certainly the importance of social relationships to the human condition cannot be overstated.15 For this reason, feminists would be well advised to embrace the tools of economic analysis that focus on purposeful human action as it relates to knowledge and coordination in society.16
There is, of course, a difference between explicit and implicit cooperation. The latter, we have argued, is the province of the free marketplace. But even the former, comprised of voluntary charity, voluntary socialism, and other such institutions, are also part of the free-enterprise system, albeit they cannot be characterized as markets. Take voluntary charity first; to which sector is it properly to be most likened? That is, common parlance has it that there are three categories of an economy: the private market place, government, and the third or voluntary sector. Suppose that, for some reason, we were allowed only a bipartite distinction, instead of this tripartite one; into which category would private charity fall? That is, is charitable giving more like market or government behavior?
The answer is clear: the former is correct. For what markets and voluntary charity share is the non-coercive elements that are common to both; the same cannot be said for government. When the state comes to collect money for what it needs, it does so on the basis of compulsion: if you do not pay your taxes, force and violence are visited upon you.17 In very sharp contrast indeed, both business firms and charitable organizations have to seduce their clients, they cannot force them to do their bidding.
States Williams (1998, p. 640) in this regard:
The test for moral relations among people is to ask whether the act was peaceable and voluntary or violent and involuntary. Put another way, was there seduction, or was there rape? Seduction (voluntary exchange) occurs when we offer our fellow man the following proposition: I will make you feel good if you make me feel good. An example of this occurs when I visit my grocer. In effect I offer, “If you make me feel good by giving me that loaf of bread, I will make you feel good by giving you a dollar.” Whenever there is seduction, we have a positive-sum game; i.e., both parties are better off in their own estimation.
Rape (involuntary exchange), on the other hand, happens when we offer our fellow man the following proposition: “If you do not make me feel good, I am going to make you feel bad.” An example of this would be where I walked into my grocer’s store with a gun and offered, “If you do not make me feel good by giving me that loaf of bread, I am going to make you feel bad by shooting you.” Whenever there is rape, we have a zero-sum game, i.e., in order for one person to be better off, it necessarily requires that another be made worse off.
For those of us who think that the democratic principle of majority rule establishes the morality of government actions, I would caution that gang rape is no more morally acceptable than individual rape. In other words, a majority vote to rape someone does not make rape moral.
Widespread private control and ownership of property is consistent with seduction and the minimization of rape. Widespread government ownership and/or control over property is consistent with rape-maximization. Government is the major source of rape-like exchanges. In addition, private ownership and control of property leads to the dispersion of power. Government control and ownership leads to consolidation of power and increased potential for abuse.
Next, consider socialism. It, too, or at least one of its variants, can properly be considered as legitimate a part of free enterprise as any explicit market. In order to see this, consult the diagram below. There, it will be seen that there are not one but rather two versions of socialism, and the same applies to capitalism. That is, each system can be organized along either voluntary or coercive principles.
| Voluntary | Coercive | |
| Socialism | A | B |
| Capitalism | C | D |
If the former, then that system is compatible with laissez-faire capitalism, if the latter, then not. For example, under category A, we find such institutions as the kibbutz,18 the monastery, the nunnery, the food or baby-sitting co-op, etc. In B, there are unions and communist countries such as the old U.S.S.R., and present-day Cuba and North Korea. These are miles apart in terms of political philosophy, and there is the question as to why they should even share an appellation. C is of course the domain of laissez-faire capitalism, where all acts take place between consenting adults, and D is economic fascism, in which there is a veneer of free enterprise and private property rights, but the basic reality is one of compulsion and intimidation. There are, unfortunately, no real-world examples of the former, but fascist Italy and Nazi Germany readily depict the latter.
The point is that the economic debate is not really between socialism (A + B) and capitalism (C + D) as the feminists we are criticizing implicitly believe. Rather, the contending forces are the institutions devoted to peaceful interaction (A + C) versus those predicated upon the opposite philosophy (B + D).
This essay began with a quotation by Mises: “The function of battle is destruction; of competition, construction” (1981, p. 285). As Hayek’s work demonstrates, without competition we could not discover or utilize knowledge in society. The outcome of competition (more and better knowledge) enhances, and in some cases, makes cooperation possible in the first place. Contrast this to the feminist view that the outcome of competition is an unequal distribution of wealth in favor of men and that a world that was cooperative rather than competitive would produce a more equal outcome. By focusing on processes and not on particular outcomes per se, one does not try to manipulate institutions such that a particular distribution of wealth will ensue in society. Even if desirable, this is impossible due to the complexity of the economic order.
Certainly, if market competition is dependent upon cooperation through agreement on rules, women should not only be subject to them but also have the ability to agree (or disagree) with them. This is fundamental to a just society. If women are part of the process by which the fundamental rules of society are decided upon, then it need not be sexist. However, to the degree that women have not been allowed to fully participate in that process,19 sexism has reigned. Perhaps it has been the asymmetric application of rules in society that has gone a long way toward producing the distribution in wealth that feminists find so disturbing. Because it is impossible to determine what the societal outcome (such as with respect to wealth distribution) would have been had men and women always been subject to the same rules, our policy prescriptions would only entail according the same legal treatment to both men and women. As Hayek explains, “The only common aim which we can pursue by the choice of this technique of ordering social affairs is the general kind of pattern, or the abstract character, of the order that will form itself” (1978, p. 184). In other words, we cannot hope to bring about specific results, nor would it be just to do so by force. Empirically, it is a question as to how this change alone already has and will continue to impact social institutions in general (as well as wealth distribution). Undeniably, however, this change implies a process of both competition and cooperation.
_____________________
Deborah Walker, Jerry W. Dauterive, Elyssa Schultz, and Walter Block, Journal of Business Ethics 55, no. 3 (December 2004): 241–52. In-text references can be found in the bibliography section of this book.
1 Sometimes the idea of cooperation is expressed as being “natural” or from nature (Gross and Averill) and is therefore defined as a “relationship,” while competition is defined as a “struggle.” This follows from another popular theme in feminist literature which criticizes mainstream economics on the grounds that its theories ignore nature in favor of artificial constructs; or that instead of living in peace with nature, nature is to be conquered.
2 Ferber and Nelson explain the feminist empiricist position: “it is not the tools of the discipline [of economics] that need improvement, only the way they are applied” (Ferber and Nelson 1993, p. 8); the feminist difference position emphasizes “distinctions between men and women,” such that, “the failures and biases of men’s past inquiry are the result of their ‘masculinist methods’” (ibid.).
3 We are referring here to the model of perfect competition, which we explain further later in the paper. This model concludes that cooperative behavior between firms is, by definition, anti-competitive. We do not agree, however, that this model is sexist in nature.
4 In this paper, we use the term “feminist” to refer to the views of those with whom we disagree. A better appellation for economists with this perspective might be “left-wing feminists,” or “anti-market feminists” to distinguish them from feminists who support markets and capitalism. See on this: http://www.zetetics.com/mac.
5 Nancy Folbre (1993) for a synopsis of the ideas of these writers with respect to the self-interest assumption of economics and its relation to competition.
6 Owen was articulate on the idea “that the character of man is, without a single exception, always formed for him. … Man, never did, nor is it possible he ever can, form his own character” (1950, pp. 91–92).
7 Bebel goes on to say, “The persons vying with each other [in a non-capitalistic mode of production] are indeed impelled by the ambition of serving the common cause and of winning recognition. But this sort of ambition is a virtue since it serves the common good and at the same time gives satisfaction to the individual” (1910, p. 375).
8 It is highly debatable as to whether or not women have engaged in market relations less often than men have. In any case, feminists often claim that when women do engage in exchange, it is usually as exploited laborers or passive consumers.
9 Feiner explains that since markets fulfill our wants, just as our mothers did when we were infants, the neoclassical model, which emphasizes individualized market exchange, therefore “functions to relieve separation anxieties” (from having been separated from our mothers) (1995, p. 161).
10 For a response to feminist economists from a neoclassical point of view, see Reder (1999, pp. 139–40).
11 For the view that appraisement, not information, lies at the core of the Austrian contribution to the socialist calculation debate, see Gordon (1990), Hoppe (1989, 1996), Mises (1981), Rothbard (1991), and Salerno (1990a, 1990b).
12 For critiques of feminist economic theory from a praxeological point of view, see Horwitz (1995), Vaughn (1994), and Walker (1994).
13 It is usually through what is known as the “structure-conduct-performance” paradigm that antitrust policies are considered to be necessary means to increasing competition in markets.
14 This is the definition used by Austrian economists for competition, not the model of perfect competition of the neo-classical school. See on this Armentano (1991), Block (1994), DiLorenzo (1997), Boudreaux and DiLorenzo (1992), High (1984–1985), Kirzner (1973), McChesney (1991), Rothbard (1970), Shugart (1987), and Smith (1983).
15 And perhaps many feminists are correct in their assessment that as more women enter the economics profession, those institutions usually dominated by women will become more important in the study of economics.
16 Austrian economists, following Mises, define economics as the study of purposeful human action. At least theoretically, action within households, child-rearing activities and the like, are as much up for discussion as are actions in markets. What women mostly do, and what men mostly do, insofar as they differ, are of equal importance.
17 This is contrary to the Public Choice (Buchanan and Tullock 1971) argument that we have all agreed to be taxed at the constitutional level, and that therefore, if you look beneath the superficialities, these payments are really voluntary. For a critique of this view, see Block and DiLorenzo (2000, 2001), DiLorenzo and Block (2001), DiLorenzo (1988), and Rothbard (1997).
18 This assumes, contrary to the actual practice of most such organizations in Israel, that it is funded solely by its own members, and not on a coercive basis by unwilling participants.
19 For example, not being allowed to own property, to sign contracts, as was the case in the U.S. in a bygone era, and still obtains in many places.